Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Yeah, I'm lurking too. Today I'm finding the silly electric sun thread much more exciting, however.
Purely for the intellectual challenge. Why did anyone care to prove Fermat's last theorem?
Did anyone? I forget ...
After 400,000 years ago, they aren't called Homo erectus anymore, they're called archaic Homo sapiens. (Or just Homo sapiens, if you call the subgroup that arose about 120,000 years ago Homo sapiens sapiens. Whatever floats your boat.) They didn't so much go extinct as they changed. They overlap and intergrade with both Neanderthals and their contemporaries, modern Homo sapiens.
I've posted and re-posted the hominid skulls from the periods from 400,000 to 100,000 years ago. We do not lack for ancestors.
Even you.
Genus is basically defined by being the bin that lies above species. It's a beauty contest, as is family, order, you name it. OK, a phylum is supposed to have a unique body plan, although that's harder to pin down than it sounds.
Speciation means something in extant sexual species. (In the fossil record, it's back to being guesswork.) Everything above it is arbitrary mush for a long ways.
You have pegged your definition in mush.
TO win a date with "Plato the Platypus"?
Did anyone? I forget ...
Yes. They did a special on PBS all about it. It took the guy who did it about 8 or ten years, and his proof was extremely complicated, involving Mathematics that didn't exist in Fermat's day. Needless to say, the proof was too large to fit in the margin of Fermat's book, but it surely wasn't what Fermat had in mind. Whether Fermat had some OTHER proof, or was just mistaken, is still unknown.
Please provide me with "one shred of scientific FACT" that supports the "theory" I know you hold that people other than yourself have minds.
Bump for your answer also please, to my question in #1714. I'm still waiting for the answers/proofs from Kyrie and Jedigirl:
To: Kyrie; Jedigirl
Kyrie asked in #12:"Can you list the assumptions necessary to derive it?"
I responded: Good question.
Can you list the presuppositions/assumptions necessary for me to believe that people other than myself have minds? I mean ... I know *I* have a mind, but how can I prove that other people have minds? How do I know that you all aren't just robots?
1714 posted on 3/24/02 2:11 PM Pacific by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
The fossil record is notoriously unreliable. It proves nothing. It's evidence of little. Do you really think the brontosaurus acutally existed?
2) Observed instances of speciation. See BMCDA's ring-species posts on this thread just for two examples.
Speciation is not macro-evolution.
3) Molecular clock evidence (phylogenetic trees that parallel the preexisting morphological ones).
Molecular clock evidence isn't holding up. Proteins seem to change more erratically than first assumed. Here's a link to a study at the University of North Carolina.
4) The ability of the evolutionary model to explain what we see and predict things we should not see.
I've always heard this. Usually, though when examples are provided they are disappointingly anti-climatic. Can you provide an example? Remember, we are talking about macro-evolution.
5) The lack of any other model with even a pretense of real information content or usefulness as a framework.
I think this might be the real point. The model is broken but it's all people have so they hang onto it like a starving dog hangs onto a bone. If the academics who set standards stop defending this theory with such strident fear, we may get a better, more useful model.
Here's a couple of other links that call it into question since you probably wouldn't trust a self-declared Creationist:
link 1 (This guy assumes evolution to be true)
link 2 (An intelligent design proponent.)
True, the Bible is not science, it is the Word of God. Evolution is not science either, it is the word of the charlatan Darwin which has been disproven by real science numerous times as I have posted here.
Ok with me. However, you sound more like a sore loser than someone who won the discussion, but then, that's just my opinion and to you it is also irrelevant.
I did not accuse you of being an atheist. I said that evolution is an atheistic/materialistic ideology. Interestingly, except for the atheistic part, you have no problem with my statement. You should think about it a lot more if you are a Christian. Ideologies are substitutes for religion. The materialism I speak of is philosophical materialism, not buying big expensive cars. It denies there being a God also. Are you confortable with that? Are you confortable with being on the same side as the atheists Haeckel, Huxley, Dawkings and Gould? Don't you think that with folk like that on the side of evolution you should at least look a little more closely at what you are supporting?
That's a garbage analogy. Calculus does not talk about life, evolution does. Evolution nowhere says where it starts and if you have been following these threads you will see that the evolutionists deny that God created life. In fact, God's creation of life is totally incompatible with evolution. The reason is quite simple: if God created life, what is more likely - that the species were created by the convoluted, contradictory, almost impossible to think of "survival of the fittest" or that God created it? If one is a Christian and believes in the Bible, why should one think that God created life and then went to sleep? Certainly the Bible teaches that God is involved in the world. So why deny that he created different species as evolutionists constantly do. In fact, half the time their argument is 'you are not going ot say that God did it are you?'. So yes, evolution does deny God and it does deny that God created life in the beginning.
As to your posting on the Pope statement on evolution, yes, I read it, yes I remember it. And no, my opionion about it is none of your darn business.
How funny. You cannot find the proof can you? Nothing is called archaic anything (as I have already told you) they are always called by the species name (I am talking among scientists of course, not evolutionists). Also a species name does not change just because of the date of the find. That is not science. Science changes the species name when the characteristics change. However, you are still bantering words instead of doing what you should have done when I questioned you first on this:
Speciation means something in extant sexual species. (In the fossil record, it's back to being guesswork.) Everything above it is arbitrary mush for a long ways.
You have pegged your definition in mush.
Interesting last sentence. You agree with me that the definitions of speciation are nonsense but you call my calling for at least a genus change for macro-evolution to be mush. It is you who has been insisting that the silliest kind of speciation - such as a change in bird call - be called macro-evolution, not me. Genus requires new capabilities, new abilities, changes in phenotype and that is exactly why I said a change is genus is required to show macro-evolution.
Why should we believe your claims about the Bible rather than the Indians's claims about the Vedas?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.